Smith v. Margaritaville, No. 51 53 94 (May 16, 1991)
Opinion of the Court
Margaritaville, a third party plaintiff, has now brought an action against Ransom Daniels, the third party CT Page 4778 defendant, claiming the plaintiff's death was caused by Daniels, who operated his boat while intoxicated and crashed it into a rock, thereby causing the death of the plaintiff.
Margaritaville acknowledges in its brief that it has [EDITORS' NOTE: IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY NINETEEN WORDS THAT DO NOT APPEAR HEAR BECAUSE THEY IS ELECTRONICALLY NON-TRANSFERRABLE.] FROM THE ORIGINAL TEXT.] sound in negligence. Accordingly, the motion to strike is granted with respect to the Dram Shop count.
Margaritaville claims next that the motion to strike should be denied as to the claim of negligence, or in wilfull, wanton, or reckless conduct. It claims that under Tort Reform II, Sec.
With respect to the negligence claim, the jury may not consider the liability of a person not a party to the action under Connecticut General Statutes
Connecticut General Statutes
The claim of the third party plaintiff, therefore, is barred.
Accordingly, the motion to strike the third party complaint is granted.
Hurley, J.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.